The Use of Trademarks in Empirical Research: Towards an Integrated Framework

This paper represents an early attempt to develop an integrated framework linking empirical studies that make use of trademark statistics. Despite its youth, this field of scholarly activity has already accumulated a critical mass of papers that allow us to draw first general conclusions about the trademark lifecycle and its impact on organisational functioning. Based on a systematic review of 64 articles with some elements of empirical trademark analysis, five broad research areas have been identified, namely: the determinants of trademark deposits; the relationship between trademarks and innovation processes; the role of trademarks in differentiating product offerings; the strategic use of trademarks; and the impact of trademarks on firm performance. Within each category, a more detailed aggregation of articles has also been proposed. Overall, the analysis has shown that the performance-based perspective currently dominates the research landscape, with studies on trademark deposits and the trademark-innovation link to follow. At the same time, there is still little known about micro-foundations of a company's trademarking behaviour; the use of trademarks and other intellectual property rights in a complementary way and its effect on value transference; as well as the performance implications of differentiation strategy. This paper considers these and other findings to outline directions for future research

Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, Vol. 1

Prepared by and for policy-makers, leaders of public sector research establishments, technology transfer professionals, licensing executives, and scientists, this online resource offers up-to-date information and strategies for utilizing the power of both intellectual property and the public domain. Emphasis is placed on advancing innovation in health and agriculture, though many of the principles outlined here are broadly applicable across technology fields. Eschewing ideological debates and general proclamations, the authors always keep their eye on the practical side of IP management. The site is based on a comprehensive Handbook and Executive Guide that provide substantive discussions and analysis of the opportunities awaiting anyone in the field who wants to put intellectual property to work. This multi-volume work contains 153 chapters on a full range of IP topics and over 50 case studies, composed by over 200 authors from North, South, East, and West. If you are a policymaker, a senior administrator, a technology transfer manager, or a scientist, we invite you to use the companion site guide available at http://www.iphandbook.org/index.html The site guide distills the key points of each IP topic covered by the Handbook into simple language and places it in the context of evolving best practices specific to your professional role within the overall picture of IP management

A question of balance

Because the patent system may do substantial harm as well as possible good, balance between the innovation inducement effect and the competition reduction effect has always been important. It has less often been recognised that the patent system attracts the kind of ‘gaming’ behaviour that has been rife in tax policy (Section 1). The current review of patentable subject matter provides the opportunity to return the patent system to the narrow realm in which it belongs—where there is likely to be a benefit to the public. This would be consistent with current empirical evidence—that patents are important in inducing innovation only where technology is highly codified or where the initial investment is very large compared to market size (Section 2). Establishing the boundaries of actual patent policy is challenging, but it can be assumed that the government’s intent is that the overall system not be welfare-reducing. This means that there must be a reasonable consideration in exchange for the monopoly—patent monopolies should not be lightly granted. There has never been any government decision to extend the boundaries of patentable subject matter to new fields such as software, discoveries or methods of medical treatment. These major competition and innovation policy decisions have been made within the patent administration system (Section 3). There is clearly a major gap between patent policy and the actual outcomes as delivered by the patent administration system. These gaps are explored in Section 4, where a series of legal decisions and legal doctrines are considered from an economic viewpoint. The gulf between policy and practice suggests the need for: serious attention to ‘gaming’ behaviour, including ‘anti-avoidance’ provisions and penalties for undermining the patent system; a need to redress the way in which the patent playing field is so substantially sloped in favour of the patent applicant that many uninventive ‘inventions’ are being granted patents: a need for a multi-faceted team to address the gaps between patent policy and practice to design a robust system that will operate to enhance national economic well-being and be resistant to ‘gaming’ behaviour. Besides addressing ‘gaming’ behaviour and the bias against the public interest, this could include: substantially increasing the inventiveness threshold; requiring claims clarity from the point of application/grant; and compensating losers, possibly by limiting the monopoly grant to the prevention of copying; a need for regular evaluation of the patent system overall, and of legal decisions that impact on patent policy in particular; and a need for the collection of proper economic data on the impact of the patent system, including: provision of advice to the patent office whenever a monopoly right is exercised; collection of data through the National Innovation Survey to identify the impact of patents on innocent innovators, and estimate the proportion of innovations induced by the patent system

Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: Executive Guide

Prepared by and for policy-makers, leaders of public sector research establishments, technology transfer professionals, licensing executives, and scientists, this online resource offers up-to-date information and strategies for utilizing the power of both intellectual property and the public domain. Emphasis is placed on advancing innovation in health and agriculture, though many of the principles outlined here are broadly applicable across technology fields. Eschewing ideological debates and general proclamations, the authors always keep their eye on the practical side of IP management. The site is based on a comprehensive Handbook and Executive Guide that provide substantive discussions and analysis of the opportunities awaiting anyone in the field who wants to put intellectual property to work. This multi-volume work contains 153 chapters on a full range of IP topics and over 50 case studies, composed by over 200 authors from North, South, East, and West. If you are a policymaker, a senior administrator, a technology transfer manager, or a scientist, we invite you to use the companion site guide available at http://www.iphandbook.org/index.html The site guide distills the key points of each IP topic covered by the Handbook into simple language and places it in the context of evolving best practices specific to your professional role within the overall picture of IP management

Harmonization Without Consensus: Critical Reflections on Drafting a Substantive Patent Law Treaty

In this Article, we contend that the World Intellectual Property Organization\u27s proposed Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) is premature. Developing countries are struggling to adjust to the heightened standards of intellectual property protection required by the TRIPS Agreement of 1994. With TRIPS, at least, these countries obtained side payments (in the form of trade concessions) to offset the rising costs of knowledge products. A free-standing instrument, such as the SPLT, would shrink the remaining flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement with no side payments and no concessions to the catch-up strategies of developing countries at different stages of technological advancement. More controversially, we argue that a deep harmonization would boomerang against even its developed country promoters by creating more problems than it would solve. There is no vision of a properly functioning patent system for the developed world that commands even the appearance of a consensus. The evidence shows, instead, that the worldwide intellectual property system has entered a brave new scientific epoch, in which experts have only tentative, divergent ideas about how best to treat a daunting array of new technologies. The proposals for reconciling the needs of different sectors, such as information technology and biotechnology, pose hard, unresolved issues at a time when the costs of litigation are rising at the expense of profits from innovation. These difficulties are compounded by the tendency of universities to push patenting up stream, generating new rights to core methodologies and research tools. As new approaches to new technologies emerge in different jurisdictions, there is a need to gather empirical evidence to determine which, if any, of these still experimental solutions are preferable over time. Our argument need not foreclose other less intrusive options and measures surveyed in the Article that can reduce the costs of delaying harmonization. However, the international community should not rush to freeze legal obligations regarding the protection of intellectual property. It should wait until economists and policymakers better understand the dynamics of innovation and the role that patent rights play in promoting progress and until there are mechanisms in place to keep international obligations responsive to developments in science, technology, and the organization of the creative community

Country risk and the international flows of technology: evidence from the chemical industry

We empirically investigate the relationship between country risk and the international flows of technology. Using a comprehensive database on investments in chemical plants during the period 1981- 1991, we show that higher levels of country risk are associated with fewer technology transfers to recipient economies. This holds true both for wholly owned operations and for more market-based transactions. The analysis also suggests that technology transfers with smaller resource commitment tend to be preferred in country with higher levels of risk. Hence, higher country risk not only does it reduce the amount of wholly owned investment, it also contributes to shift from this type of technology transfer to more market-mediated means, such as licensing. After controlling for several country characteristics, we do not find intellectual property rights protection playing a significant role in fostering technology transfers or conditioning the transfer mode

Intellectual property rights for nanotechnology

PhD ThesisThe purpose of this study is to examine intellectual property (IP) protection for nanotechnology, comparing the laws of Malaysia with those of the United Kingdom (as a member of the European Union and European Patent Convention). As well as analysing current primary and secondary legal sources, a small number of discrete interviews were conducted with key nanotechnology scientists in Malaysia and the United Kingdom to ascertain the nature and development of nanotechnology in the jurisdictions under study and to explore the experts’ perceptions of IP laws, including the pattern of protection that might be expected as the technology matures. This study argues that current intellectual property rights are appropriate to govern nanotechnology creations, so that there is no need to devise a new form of IP right for nanotechnology. The emphasis in the IP literature to date has been on patent law, but this study argues that the law of breach of confidence is also very significant, despite difficulties presented by the technology. Furthermore, from qualitative empirical and doctrinal evidence, other forms of IP protection may be applicable to some extent. This study also investigates the current term protection of different forms of IP which may be relevant to nanotechnology, including the possible application of Supplementary Protection Certificates to allow for the time taken by nanotechnology products to enter the market. Finally, some recommendations are made for both Malaysia and the United Kingdom to protect nanotechnology appropriately.Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) and the government of Malaysi